Re: More complex numbers than reals?

Am 11.07.2024 um 03:13 schrieb Moebius:

Am 11.07.2024 um 03:08 schrieb Moebius:

Am 11.07.2024 um 03:06 schrieb Moebius:

Am 11.07.2024 um 02:51 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>

What about dropping the word more in favor of density, or granularity of an infinite set? The reals are denser, or more granular than the rationals and naturals?

 Just to make that clear, in math we say that the _cardinality_ of IR is larger than the _cardinality_ of Q or IN.
 See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality
 Read it, man!

"Our intuition gained from finite sets breaks down when dealing with infinite sets. In the late 19th century Georg Cantor, Gottlob Frege, Richard Dedekind and others rejected the view that the whole cannot be the same size as the part. One example of this is Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel. Indeed, Dedekind defined an infinite set as one that can be placed into a one-to-one correspondence with a strict subset (that is, having the same size in Cantor's sense); this notion of infinity is called Dedekind infinite. Cantor introduced the cardinal numbers, and showed—according to his bijection-based definition of size—that some infinite sets are greater than others. The smallest infinite cardinality is that of the natural numbers (ℵ0)."